“What’s different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so.”
Any secretary of state can require that now and in Obama’s case such a secretary of state would have received a perfectly legal Hawaii bc...the same one used to get a passport. So what’s different?
“Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.”
Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?
“I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.”
You are right, you don’t have standing. A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely).
“Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?”
I’ve practiced law for 33 years. I’ve heard more times than I could count claims that one party or another has “dispositive evidence” which will end a case. More often than not the party doesn’t have that evidence and a trial demonstrates that. Trials are very good at finding the truth. In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive. If it is, and the sitting president is not qualified, then he should be removed. That’s how the Constitution provides, T.
There's a difference between an ability and an obligation to perform a task. If a Secretary of State has an obligation to ensure a candidate meets certain criteria that's quite different from a legal ability to do so. And I see your eagle eye apparently missed my reference to original documentation. A " Certificate of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii can be whatever the Hawaii Legislature says it is but the Secretary of State of another state is not necessarily obliged to accept it as " dispositive proof" that the child was "Natural Born". If one of the candidate's Grandmother's had insisted - up until he decided to run for the office of President - that he had been born say in Kenya and newspapers reports prior thereto had referred to him as " Kenyan Born" it might alert the Secretary of State that his duty of care to enforce the statute was somewhat heightened.
Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?
Yes that was an interesting document. If I recall correctly that had a footprint on it and of course footprints do not change over a lifetime.
A secretary of state likely wouldnt have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that theres no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely
You misunderstand me. I envisage a procedure whereby the candidates would prove to the Secretary, to his complete satisfaction, that they were eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. I agree that things would get very messy if a candidate were allowed on the ballot and an election took place. Thus it would be an administrative procedure that ensures the candidates bona fides before any court was involved.
In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly dispositive evidence really is dispositive
Yes that would be true if we genuinely had elected Solons. Unfortunately where the President's party has a majority in both houses the chances of the present incumbents overcoming self interest to do what is right for the country is practically non-existent.
I hope you can see that even reasonable people are concerned when a candidate is born and raised in unusual circumstances and refuses access to any of his personal records relating to his birth, his academic records or his health. The Present incumbent could easily rid himself of all these "wild" rumours by granting access to his birth and other personal records. He has declined to do so.